▲ 1572 ▼ Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight (www.theverge.com) submitted 2 years ago by flop_leash_973@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 256 comments fedilink hide all child comments Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 172 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (68 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 68 child comments replies: [–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 128 points 2 years ago (26 children) I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] ElectroNeutrino@lemmy.world 65 points 2 years ago (3 children) I wonder how that's going to play out with Apple and their monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 84 points 2 years ago (2 children) A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies. Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 80 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could. The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time. The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device). But they can't outright control anything. Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses. It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't. permalink fedilink source parent [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (20 replies) [–] Aatube@kbin.social 38 points 2 years ago (2 children) But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* They obviously aren't forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That's what's getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] bigFab@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (8 children) On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google's Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university's online studies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago* Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it'll let you use it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tabular@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (4 children) Needing an app to sign into uni Jesus fucking hell. Bet it's propriety. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (3 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too, but that one's on F-Droid at least permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial. It is almost impossible to get it working without the app. permalink fedilink source parent [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ah, well in that case, even better permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) [–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (21 children) Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [+] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty "persuasive" about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ExLisper@linux.community 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) What's in the contract between Google and Samsung? What exactly are the conditions for including both stores? Can any phone manufacturer get the same deal? What are the requirements for licensing Android? What number of phones on the market don't include Play Store by default? What % of applications are only in Play Store? Monopoly is not about exceptions but about market control. Until you know what companies have to do to use Android and function on the market you can't really tell if it's monopoly or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago I have to imagine the contract that Samsung has is "We're Samsung. We basically ARE Korean technology. We can build our own mobile OS if we want to and cut you out entirely. That's a lot of spying on customers you wouldn't get to do. We get our own app store or we walk. Oh look, LG just exited the smart phone market. Do what must be done." permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (15 children) Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments load more comments (15 replies) [–] Rose@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago “Impairment means something is there, it’s being used, it just isn’t as good. Prevented means you shut it down.” Epic’s expert Bernheim argues that Google’s expert Gentzkow “ignores four critical aspects of Google’s conduct,” including: Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges Google is dominant Google shares its Play profits with its competitors “When push came to shove, he talked about whether competition is prevented” rather than impaired, says Bernheim. The upshot of that: Bernheim believes Epic doesn’t need to prove Google actually blocked competition entirely. In his opinion (for Epic), Epic only needs to show there were no good alternatives to Google Play and Google Play Billing. It doesn’t need to show there were no alternatives at all. For example, says Bernheim, Gentzkow presented a chart titled “Was Fortnite Blocked?” showing that revenue tanked on Google Play after the app was kicked off the store, but didn’t tank for Android phones that got Fortnite a different way. But “If off-Google Play was a good substitute for Google Play, you’d see when one drops, the other goes up commensurably.” That didn’t happen: demand stayed stable outside of Play, according to the bar graph we just saw. “There’s no indication that any of the people here are substituting to off-Google Play.” permalink fedilink source parent [–] OscarRobin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies)
[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 128 points 2 years ago (26 children) I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] ElectroNeutrino@lemmy.world 65 points 2 years ago (3 children) I wonder how that's going to play out with Apple and their monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 84 points 2 years ago (2 children) A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies. Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 80 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could. The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time. The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device). But they can't outright control anything. Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses. It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't. permalink fedilink source parent [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (20 replies)
[–] ElectroNeutrino@lemmy.world 65 points 2 years ago (3 children) I wonder how that's going to play out with Apple and their monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 84 points 2 years ago (2 children) A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies. Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 80 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could. The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time. The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device). But they can't outright control anything. Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses. It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 84 points 2 years ago (2 children) A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies. Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 80 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could. The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time. The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device). But they can't outright control anything. Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses. It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 80 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Apple wouldn't need to have secret deals. They're running a walled garden over there. You can't side load, and you can't run payments through the app without Apple's approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn't a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could. The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don't have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not "theirs", even if they've increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time. The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don't approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device). But they can't outright control anything. Which is where the deals come in. They're making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses. It's anti-competitive, because to spite Google's efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn't. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Aatube@kbin.social 38 points 2 years ago (2 children) But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* They obviously aren't forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That's what's getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* They obviously aren't forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That's what's getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* They obviously aren't forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That's what's getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bigFab@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (8 children) On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google's Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university's online studies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago* Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it'll let you use it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] tabular@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (4 children) Needing an app to sign into uni Jesus fucking hell. Bet it's propriety. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (3 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too, but that one's on F-Droid at least permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial. It is almost impossible to get it working without the app. permalink fedilink source parent [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ah, well in that case, even better permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago* Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it'll let you use it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (4 children) Needing an app to sign into uni Jesus fucking hell. Bet it's propriety. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (3 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too, but that one's on F-Droid at least permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial. It is almost impossible to get it working without the app. permalink fedilink source parent [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ah, well in that case, even better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (3 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too, but that one's on F-Droid at least permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial. It is almost impossible to get it working without the app. permalink fedilink source parent [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ah, well in that case, even better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Need an app to configure good ol' eduroam wifi too I'm pretty sure you don't, or at least didn't, it's just much more of a hassle to configure permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial. It is almost impossible to get it working without the app. permalink fedilink source parent [–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ah, well in that case, even better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Johanno@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago In theory you don't. In practice I couldn't get working with the 6 page step for step tutorial. It is almost impossible to get it working without the app. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Ah, well in that case, even better permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 years ago (21 children) Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [+] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty "persuasive" about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ExLisper@linux.community 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) What's in the contract between Google and Samsung? What exactly are the conditions for including both stores? Can any phone manufacturer get the same deal? What are the requirements for licensing Android? What number of phones on the market don't include Play Store by default? What % of applications are only in Play Store? Monopoly is not about exceptions but about market control. Until you know what companies have to do to use Android and function on the market you can't really tell if it's monopoly or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago I have to imagine the contract that Samsung has is "We're Samsung. We basically ARE Korean technology. We can build our own mobile OS if we want to and cut you out entirely. That's a lot of spying on customers you wouldn't get to do. We get our own app store or we walk. Oh look, LG just exited the smart phone market. Do what must be done." permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (15 children) Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments load more comments (15 replies)
[+] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty "persuasive" about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ExLisper@linux.community 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) What's in the contract between Google and Samsung? What exactly are the conditions for including both stores? Can any phone manufacturer get the same deal? What are the requirements for licensing Android? What number of phones on the market don't include Play Store by default? What % of applications are only in Play Store? Monopoly is not about exceptions but about market control. Until you know what companies have to do to use Android and function on the market you can't really tell if it's monopoly or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago I have to imagine the contract that Samsung has is "We're Samsung. We basically ARE Korean technology. We can build our own mobile OS if we want to and cut you out entirely. That's a lot of spying on customers you wouldn't get to do. We get our own app store or we walk. Oh look, LG just exited the smart phone market. Do what must be done." permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 years ago The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty "persuasive" about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) What's in the contract between Google and Samsung? What exactly are the conditions for including both stores? Can any phone manufacturer get the same deal? What are the requirements for licensing Android? What number of phones on the market don't include Play Store by default? What % of applications are only in Play Store? Monopoly is not about exceptions but about market control. Until you know what companies have to do to use Android and function on the market you can't really tell if it's monopoly or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago I have to imagine the contract that Samsung has is "We're Samsung. We basically ARE Korean technology. We can build our own mobile OS if we want to and cut you out entirely. That's a lot of spying on customers you wouldn't get to do. We get our own app store or we walk. Oh look, LG just exited the smart phone market. Do what must be done." permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago I have to imagine the contract that Samsung has is "We're Samsung. We basically ARE Korean technology. We can build our own mobile OS if we want to and cut you out entirely. That's a lot of spying on customers you wouldn't get to do. We get our own app store or we walk. Oh look, LG just exited the smart phone market. Do what must be done." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (15 children) Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Rose@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago “Impairment means something is there, it’s being used, it just isn’t as good. Prevented means you shut it down.” Epic’s expert Bernheim argues that Google’s expert Gentzkow “ignores four critical aspects of Google’s conduct,” including: Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges Google is dominant Google shares its Play profits with its competitors “When push came to shove, he talked about whether competition is prevented” rather than impaired, says Bernheim. The upshot of that: Bernheim believes Epic doesn’t need to prove Google actually blocked competition entirely. In his opinion (for Epic), Epic only needs to show there were no good alternatives to Google Play and Google Play Billing. It doesn’t need to show there were no alternatives at all. For example, says Bernheim, Gentzkow presented a chart titled “Was Fortnite Blocked?” showing that revenue tanked on Google Play after the app was kicked off the store, but didn’t tank for Android phones that got Fortnite a different way. But “If off-Google Play was a good substitute for Google Play, you’d see when one drops, the other goes up commensurably.” That didn’t happen: demand stayed stable outside of Play, according to the bar graph we just saw. “There’s no indication that any of the people here are substituting to off-Google Play.” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OscarRobin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means. permalink fedilink source parent